Posted on 05/14/2006 12:28:06 PM PDT by notes2005
WASHINGTON - Some election-year advice to Republicans from a high-ranking source who has the president's ear: Don't use a proposed constitutional amendment against gay marriage as a campaign tool.
Just who is that political strategist? Laura Bush.
The first lady told "Fox News Sunday" that she thinks the American people want a debate on the issue. But, she said, "I don't think it should be used as a campaign tool, obviously."
"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.
The Senate will debate legislation that would have the Constitution define marriage as the union between a man and a woman early next month, Majority Leader Bill Frist said on CNN's "Late Edition."
President Bush supports the amendment, but Vice President Dick Cheney does not. Cheney's daughter, Mary, is a lesbian and has been speaking out against the marriage amendment as she promotes her new book, "Now It's My Turn."
Mary Cheney wrote that she almost quit working on the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2004 because of Bush's position on gay marriage. Asked Sunday about reports that White House political adviser Karl Rove and other Republicans want to use the issue to mobilize conservatives for the midterm election, she said she hoped "no one would think about trying to amend the Constitution as a political strategy."
"I certainly don't know what conversations have gone on between Karl and anybody up on the Hill," she said on Fox. "But you know, what I can say is look, amending the Constitution with this amendment, this piece of legislation, is a bad piece of legislation. It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
But Frist said he would defend the amendment even to Dick Cheney.
"I basically say, Mr. Vice President, right now marriage is under attack in this country," Frist said on CNN. "And we've seen activist judges overturning state by state law, where state legislatures have passed laws defining marriage between a man and a woman, and that's being overturned by a handful of activist judges around the country. And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."
Someone tell the First Lady that if it wasn't for the Marriage Issue, her husband would be cutting cedar in Crawford, and John Kerry would be in the Oval Office.
Also, let her know that we had enough of presidential political twofers when her husband's predecessor was in office.
"And that is why we need an amendment to come to the floor of the United States Senate to define marriage as that union between one man and one woman."
Actually, we don't. Leave this as a States Rights issue where it should be. States can take care of themselves on issues such as protecting traditional marriage, abortion, gun rights, property rights, etc.
I don't want to see our Constitution amended in this manner.
Not any more than is required to discuss polygamy, polyandry, incest...
Just say no.
And where they were all intended to be.
Oh, no, don't do that. You might actually get some votes.
"Also, let her know that we had enough of presidential political twofers when her husband's predecessor was in office."
Oh come on. You can't compare Laura to Hillary. What's she supposed to do in an interview, just sit there and look pretty? Like she's not supposed to have her own opinions?
A bump for States Rights. We can't be for it one day and against it the next.
Tony Snow, where are you? Get the WH under control.
"And where they were all intended to be."
You and I must be reading the same Constitution, LOL! ;)
Actually, Wisconsin has a Protection of Marriage ammendment coming up for vote in our fall election. It's going to turn out a lot of conservative voters. Of course the libs in this state are already painting us with the 'Hate & Bigotry Paintbrush' but we're used to that. *Shrug*
We're also having a referendum on bringing back the Death Penalty for our state. The libs are all up in arms over that one as well. Goody! :)
And as soon as we get a new, Republican Governor out of that same election, we should FINALLY be able to get CC passed for our state, too.
Then, life will be good again here in Wisconsin. :)
The Bush family, like most contemporary elites in the Western world, are herd animals who value maintining comity above all else, even at the expense of tolerating evil.
Morality and republican politics require me to respect another's person, not their beliefs (Islam) nor their sexual appetites.
Who's "we"? You and that reparations-loving carpetbagger you worked for in 2004?
Do you mean protecting property rights through the Kelo decision?
Do you mean protecting gun rights, like making my pistol permit as valid in NYC as my marriage license?
Abortion???????? Don't even go there.
Yes, we need an amendment on marriage, and some common sense legislation on the other matters.
Good for Laura Bush - once again she show grace and common sense.
I've heard the Bushes called lots of names but "herd animal" is a new one.
Sheesh.
I'd say about 5 - 10 years (or less). Remember that some 'conservative' justices may decide that stare decisis takes precedence over the Constitution.
Exactly. Federal Consitutional amendments are largely exercises in pandering.
Was re-readining Nietzsche recently, but his complaints over the weak-willedness of contemporary Western culture (trends already visible in the 19th century) strike me as quite prescient.
Marriage has never been an exclusively states rights issue. Note the Federal involvement against polygamy in the 1800s, for example.
Also, because of the Full Faith & Credit clause of the USC, a couple married in one state is considered married in all 50 states. So indeed, what the consensus position is on marriage is a federal matter. So the people of Idaho have an interest in what the state of Massachusetts considers marriage, because a couple married in Mass are considered legally married in Idaho.
What specifically is it about the Full Faith & Credit clause of the USC that you don't (or won't) understand?
Nor will you see it. Two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the States - ain't going to happen. It is one hell of a process to amend the Constitution.
Sorry. I'm 100% for States Rights. We've let the Feds take away way too many of our rights as it is...such as those things you mentioned.
You have to take the good with the bad in your state. Work to change what you don't agree with. I do. :)
You better hope state's right is enough - because a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage is NEVER going to happen.
I don't pick and choose. I'm 100% for States Rights. I want ALL Constitutional powers returned to our states where they were designed to be.
Read your Constitution. Your Senator would be glad to send you a "Pocket Constitution" free of charge for the asking. It's obvious they're not reading them in Washington DC, LOL!
This is an issue that ought to be left to the individual states. It seems to me that in 2004 it was State initatives that helped the GOP.
That is yet to be tested in the courts as far as I know.
Yep. I've been doing historical legal research for years, and I came across this gem the other day-
"The federal government, then, appears to be the organ through which the united republics communicate with foreign nations, and with each other. Their submission to its operation is voluntary: its councils, its sovereignty is an emanation from theirs, not a flame by which they have been consumed, nor a vortex in which they are swallowed up. Each is still a perfect state, still sovereign, still independent, and still capable, should the occasion require, to resume the exercise of its functions, as such, in the most unlimited extent.
View of the Constitution of the United States - 1803
St. George Tucker
---
BACKGROUND*
St. George Tucker’s "View of the Constitution of the United States" was a long essay attached to the Philadelphia publication of Tucker’s Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England annotated to the US Constitution, meant to be used in the new nation.
Since Blackstone was based on a monarchy, Tucker's commentary looked at the role and rule of law in a constitutional republic. It was, thus, as historian Clyde N. Wilson writes in a forward to Tucker's work, "the first extended systematic commentary on the Constitution after it had been ratified by the people of the several states and amended by the Bill of Rights."
I wonder what she thinks about Congress hauling out the old Flag Burning Amendment as a political strategy.
Good post, you hit the nail on the head regarding the heart of this issue.
"Nor will you see it. Two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the States - ain't going to happen. It is one hell of a process to amend the Constitution."
That's part of what I'm banking on. ;)
These discussions get quickly sidetracked because gay marriage is such a divisive issue. It's easy for some to dismiss States Rights because they don't understand what an undertaking it is to amend our Constitution...in any form. The states should always feel that they're the First Line of Defense on issues such as this one.
The Amendment Process
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.
The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
"The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution."
http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process
No. A couple married in one state is considered married in all 50 states.
What about the Full Faith and Credit clause that I raised earlier, as well as equal protection issues (which I didn't raise yet)? Did you read those in your Constitution?
>>Someone tell the First Lady that if it wasn't for the Marriage Issue, her husband would be cutting cedar in Crawford, and John Kerry would be in the Oval Office.
Also, let her know that we had enough of presidential political twofers when her husband's predecessor was in office.<<
1. I think she is talking about the midterms - local campaign strategies - and in hotly contested districts gay marriage may not be the issue that gets Republians elected.
2. I'm sorry you disagree with the strategy Laura Bush is suggesting. But to call her a twofer and compare her to Hillary Clinton is really (and needlessly) insulting. She has been an excellent first lady.
That's right...the decadence caused by the breakdown in Western culture (which was exemplified by the Europe which Nietzche lived in) tends to do that.
However, the "herd animal" Bush is actually an individual who tries to re-instate such values. Thank God for him.
bttt
Don't forget what this issue is about. One state is forced to pass a law (Massachusettes) and then all the other states are forced to adapt it because of contract. That was the motivation.
Sure, she is more than entitled to her opinions. But the fact remains that without the Marriage Amendments on the ballot in mulitple states in 2004, her husband would have lost.
Also, do you think it is wise, when the President is having such difficulties (self-inflicted) with the conservative base of the GOP, for her to be out expressing opinions that are to the left of them?
What is wrong with her? Nauseating. Can you imagine a real conservative President and real conservative First Lady? Sure would be nice.
"It requires a lot of sensitivity to just talk about the issue — a lot of sensitivity," she said.
and
It is writing discrimination into the Constitution, and, as I say, it is fundamentally wrong."
If you were a conservative, you'd understand.
Activist judges have forced us to address this way. Complain to them.
This is an interesting theoretical problem, because the recommendation of such amendments shows the extent to which the Constitution's checks on judicial authority (impeachment, statutory controls on appeals, the notion that the court has little power to authorize a remedy for Constitutional violations without explicit authorization from Congress--see the 14th amendment) are clearly not working.
As a consequence, we have to reach for other tools to do the job (the political equivalent of using a dinner knife to drive a screw).
I don't know how much longer this will continue, and I am not optimistic: given the relentless pressure from the left, the courts, the media and the academy I strongly suspect that we will wind up with the kind of soft-left totalitarianism descending on Europe. In ten years time, it will probably be a 'hate crime' to even question 'gay marriage,' and hundreds of evangelicals and Roman Catholics will be sitting in jail or under court supervision for violating 'human rights.'
I am not sure I understand your question. If you are against states rights I would refer you to the part of the Constitution that says "...All powers not enumerated herein are left to the states or the people."
I am strongly in favor of that but it has been dormant since Lincoln's ignoring it led to the Civil War.
Yes, she has alot of personal class and grace.
But when she comes out expressing her pro-abortion views, or meddling in campaign strategy, or making suggestions that smack of running from the moral issues that are at the core of why Republicans are the majority, I'm entitled not to like her very much. Fair enough?
"Did you read those in your Constitution?"
Yes, Sir. That's Article IV. :)
Be my guest to work on this Constitutional Amendment if you want it. I'm not stopping you. I just don't think we should be doing it. The states should handle these situations.
But thanks for the idea of repealing the "Full Faith and Credit Clause." That would obviously have to be part of it if a constitutional amendment ever does go through on banning gay marriage at the Federal level. It's going to have to be very severe and across the board for all states, then.
I agree. Pres. gets called every nasty name in the book...and right here on FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.